Here's
the question: If eliminating the Davenport City Council's
Thursday-afternoon standing-committee meetings is a positive change
for Davenport citizens, then why all the hush and rush?

Mayor
Ed Winborn, in his politically clumsy manner, gave a hyper-confusing
presentation at last Thursday's meeting of the Finance Committee
(chaired by Alderman Charlie Brooke, naturally). Winborn proposed
eliminating all five committee meetings and moving the respective
business to one consolidated Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on
the first and third Wednesday evenings of each month. Regular council
meetings would then be held the second and fourth Wednesdays of the
month.

The
rationale, and I use the word lightly in this case, is that it would:
allow more people to contribute earlier in the process; increase time
between introduction and final action on an issue; increase
productivity by improved efficiency through consolidation; and,
according to Alderman Jamie Howard, "urge new aldermen to run for
office."

Talk
about smoke. Under Winborn's proposal, the public's first
notification of pending issues would appear on a "consent agenda"
sometime between Monday and Tuesday preceding Wednesday's Committee
of the Whole meeting. To move these consent-agenda issues to the
discussion agenda requires the specific action of an alderman. Which
means that unless one of the 10 council members sees fit to open an
item for discussion before it is voted on, the public will have no
opportunity whatsoever to speak on the issue until after the vote is
taken.

Furthermore,
even if the item is moved to the discussion agenda and citizens
address said issue, the council has no mandate to answer, provide
information or clarification, or respond in any way to the public
during the proceedings and/or before a vote is taken. Issues could
theoretically move to the next Wednesday's consent agenda for final
action with no public voice ever being heard on the matter.

Last
Monday's Committee of the Whole is a perfect example. Winborn gave
the presentation during last Thursday's Finance Committee, on the
heels of which Alderman Jamie Howard advanced it to Monday's
Committee of the Whole agenda after virtually no discussion, save
Alderman Keith Meyer's objections to the reduction of speaking time
allocated to individual citizens.

During
the Committee of the Whole meeting after citizens asked questions
about this issue, the mayor pointed out that council members and
staff were not obliged to respond to the public. Ironically, this
policy is in keeping with the warning posted in each COW agenda
relative to "public comment": "At
this time individuals may address the City Council on any matters of
City Business. This is not an opportunity to discuss issues with the
council members or get information. The opportunity exists at prior
committee meetings or in individual conversations with elected
officials."

Since
there is no language in the resolution to adequately account for this
COW policy, the council will indemnify itself against citizens trying
to seek remedy for being ignored.

At
least during committee meetings, composed of five aldermen and
considered to be the fact-finding stage of an issue, members and
staff must necessarily engage with the public in a less-formal
environment to get the particulars of an issue from all participating
parties.

The
curious aspect of Winborn's proposal is the manner by which issues
would be initiated, and then automatically qualify for that week's
consent agenda without the public's participation in any capacity.

The
resolution governing this matter boasts that it will "create
opportunities for more Council and citizen participation earlier in
the review and deliberation of issues."

This
claim is completely disingenuous. "Create opportunities" implies
new opportunities, and this is total spin. In truth, the
opportunities for public participation are greatly degraded. Instead
of three formal opportunities to speak to issues, there would now be
only two. Affected parties will have three minutes to speak on an
issue on two occasions: the Committee of the Whole meeting and the
following regular council meeting, versus the additional
standing-committee meeting, where there is a far greater focus on
individual issues.

In
addition, as far as "greater time" for public participation, this
is an illusion. Currently, there are potentially six days between
initiation and final action on an issue. Eliminating committee
meetings altogether would only add one day, leaving seven days for
the same.

So
let's do the math. Currently we have six days and three
opportunities to speak for five minutes on an issue. Proposed are
seven days and two opportunities to speak for three minutes. Anyway
you slice things, it all amounts to less participation, both in
quantity of time and quality of involvement.

Call
the aldermen and let them know you object to being further
marginalized in the civic process, and that remedy will be sought if
such important local legislation is, once again, implemented against
the will of the people.

The
timing of this proposal reflects the seriousness of the issues slated
to come before the council in the near future, making it clear that
public scrutiny and relevant participation are the last things it
desires.